Facts: The petitioner was appointed as a 'Lab Technician' in 2002. In 2010, he incurred a disability (low vision) and sought shifting to another post. Following a court direction in a previous writ petition, he was absorbed as an 'Extension Officer (Panchayat)' in 2016. A condition in his appointment order stipulated that he would be placed at the tail-end of the seniority list in the new cadre. In 2023, a provisional seniority list for promotion to Maharashtra Vikas Seva Group-B was published, excluding the petitioner's name because he had not completed the requisite seven years of service in the new cadre. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that his seniority should be counted from his initial 2002 appointment under the mandate of the disability laws.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner approached the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) via a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to challenge the final seniority list published on August 20, 2024, which excluded him from promotion eligibility.
Issue: Whether, under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, an employee shifted to a new cadre due to an acquired disability is entitled to carry forward his previous seniority, thereby disturbing the seniority of existing employees in the new cadre.
Holding: No, the petitioner is not entitled to carry forward seniority from the previous cadre to the detriment of existing employees in the new cadre.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 47(1) protects an employee's rank and pay scale but does not automatically grant seniority in a new cadre. While "reduction in rank" is a punitive measure affecting status and pay, "reduction in seniority" is a reordering within a grade that affects future promotion prospects but not current emoluments. The Court emphasized that while the law protects the disabled employee, it cannot be interpreted to cause discrimination against regular employees already in the new cadre by putting their seniority in jeopardy. Furthermore, the petitioner had accepted the "tail-end seniority" condition at the time of absorption and had worked under it for six years. Since he did not meet the mandatory seven-year experience criteria in the specific cadre of Extension Officer as required by the recruitment rules, his exclusion from the promotion list was not "merely on the ground of disability" and thus did not violate Section 47(2).